Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional

(CNN) -- A federal judge in California on Wednesday overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying the voter-approved rule violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

The decision, issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco, is an initial step in what will likely be a lengthy legal fight over California's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

At stake in the trial was whether California's ban on same-sex marriage violated the constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of two gay couples that want to marry.

The case was watched closely by both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage, as many say it is likely to wind its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, the case could end in a landmark decision on whether people in the United States are allowed to marry people of the same sex.

"We are thrilled with today's ruling, which affirms that the protections enshrined in our U.S. Constitution apply to all Americans and that our dream of equality and freedom deserves protection," said Geoff Kors, executive director for Equality California, shortly after the decision.

Honestly, this is the best news I've heard in a while. The whole Supreme Court battle will be interesting, to put things mildly, especially with as many catholics on the court as people have pointed out here ... but it's possible that just a little bit of sanity has just been injected into the issue of gay/Lesbian marriage and sexual preference in general in the United States.

About time.

------------------------------------------------

*** UPDATE ***

I would like to include part of the wording of the decision handed down by Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."

Replies to This Discussion

Hooray for progress! Someone needs to inform the Supreme Court that Homosexuality is natural, and is present in every species capable of mating as proven by Science. Then get Zoologists and other Scientists to confirm said evidence on homosexual behavior observed in other species.

I agree, regarding the Supreme Court, and the likes of Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts. I have to say, though, if they have the balls to assert that gays and Lesbians do not have the right to civil marriage, the feedback they get as a result will be loud and angry and very UN-civil.

The ruling is great news, and the SCOTUS potential for mischief concerns me, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that at least a couple of the conservative justices will lean more toward the individual-rights/libertarian end of things and conclude that religion can't make the rules for civil marriage.

It's fairly telling that Schwarzenegger and Brown both decided not to defend Prop 8 in court. The executive branch generally at least goes thru the motions of defending a legally enacted law, even when they disagree with it. Say what you like about Ahnold, but even he recognizes this law is a mean-spirited assault on a minority's human rights.

The minor, but to me very important, detail not being stressed was that the ruling judge is a George Bush senior appointee, and one who was also vigorously endorsed by Ronald Reagan. Suck on that all you patriotic, socialist hating, Beck-scrote licking maniacs.

At San Diego's Skyline Church, Pastor Jim Garlow said congregations across the nation would fast and pray for the ban to be restored. He and his congregants played a crucial role in collecting the more than 600,000 signatures required to get Proposition 8 on the ballot in 2008.
He called Wednesday's ruling an affront to Christianity — and the Constitution.
"Apparently the judge did not read the opening words of the Constitution. It says, 'We the people.' The state has voted on this twice, and along comes one judge who feels he has the right to disregard that," Garlow said.

It drives me crazy when people think that the Constitution says, "majority rules."